Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ram Prasad Judgement Given By: Hon'Ble ... on 13 September, 2013
Author: B.D.Rathi
Bench: B.D.Rathi
M.Cr.C. No.11449/2012.
13.09.13
Per B.D.Rathi,J
Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the
applicant-State.
Heard on admission.
This application for grant of leave to appeal has been
preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being
aggrieved with the judgment dated 25/07/2012 passed by
the IV Additional Session Judge, (FTC), Damoh, in Session
Trial No. 251/2010, whereby respondents have been
acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 304-B in alternative 304-B/34 in alternative 302 in alternative 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and Section 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Marriage of Bharti (since deceased) was solemnized with respondent no.7 Sonu on 15/4/07.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that respondents were involved in subjecting Sonu to cruelty and harassment due to non satisfaction of demand for dowry and ultimately, on 8/5/10, under suspicious circumstances, Bharti was admitted at District Hospital, Damoh for treatment of burn injuries and on 9/5/10, she succumbed to the injuries, thus caused. Accordingly, morgue intimation was recorded leading to registration of Crime No. 25/10 at Police Station Hindoriya and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
Learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to be interfered with.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were perused.
After appreciating the evidence on record, trial Court found material contradictions, omissions and exaggerations in the evidence of Jayantibai (PW10) and Ishwar Prasad (PW11), respectively the mother and brother of the deceased. Jayantibai deposed that deceased was carrying a pregnancy of 4-5 months but the said fact did not find corroboration from the evidence of Dr. R.A.S.Prajapati (PW3), who conducted the autopsy. Trial Court also found that deceased and her husband used to reside separately from other respondents. Further, Ishwar Prasad, in paragraph 10 of his cross-examination, supported the defence version that her husband had received burn injuries while trying to save the deceased. The said fact is also corroborated by medical evidence. Further, report of the incident was lodged after a period of two months. Statements recorded during investigation by the Investigating Officer prior to lodging of the FIR were not produced by the prosecution and no reason was ascribed therefor. Statements of Jayanti Bai and Ishwar Prasad were recorded after a period of 63 days and prior to that no allegation was leveled against the respondents. No external injury was found on the body of the deceased. Evidence of independent witnesses viz. neigbours were not recorded by the prosecution. In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court that prosecution has failed to prove it's case beyond reasonable doubt.
It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.
Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view. As such, no interference is called for with the order of acquittal in question.
The application, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
(and)